Dunk and Hang on Rim (Video)

[Welpe]

Not a chance IMO. He has significant momentum going forward and lets go once that has expended.

[JeffM]

i wouldn't call a T.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by welpe

not a chance imo. He has significant momentum going forward and lets go once that has expended.

+1

[Nevadaref]

It's 50/50 in my opinion. If a partner whacked him, I would support him.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's 50/50 in my opinion. If a partner whacked him, I would support him.

Agree. He didn't just hang on for momentum but did a bit of a pull-up to go along with it. I've let such actions go and I've called such actions.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's 50/50 in my opinion. If a partner whacked him, I would support him.

I agree. Can see arguments for both sides.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I agree. Can see arguments for both sides.

I agree, it's close. IMO, not enough for a T. If he does a full chin-up, sure, but during his mini-chin-up, he does look down into his landing area. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Not a chance IMO. He has significant momentum going forward and lets go once that has expended.

Agreed...

[jeremy341a]

I don't think he hangs too long but I don't like the pull up.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Nope.

If the defender(s) - in this case, black 11, is close enough to put their hands up and react to even their perceived possibility that the dunker might contact them somehow, I'm not going to even get close to splitting that hair.

[BryanV21]

Sounds like some people are looking for a violation/foul. If I have to think about a play, then chances are I'm not blowing my whistle. If I see a violation/foul I blow my whistle without thinking about it. Like a knee-jerk reaction.

Let's face it... our judgment/opinion matters in whether we blow the whistle. The majority of the time the play is black or white, but every once in a while a play will enter the gray area. And that gray area can bring different calls. It's too bad, as being consistent is our goal, but until the robots take over officiating that's the way it goes.

Just be sure about your call, and be able to explain why you called/no-called it.

[luvhoops]

I agree with everyone, lol. Yes, could go either way.

The player CHOSE to dunk the ball going in a forward motion and then hung on the rim for safety. It was his choice. He could have dropped in through the hoop with no rim contact. He chose to put himself in that deleterious position so why should the officials allow him to use the "safety" reason for hanging on the rim? Seems a bit strange to reward someone for making a poor decision.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

I agree with everyone, lol. Yes, could go either way.

The player CHOSE to dunk the ball going in a forward motion and then hung on the rim for safety. It was his choice. He could have dropped in through the hoop with no rim contact. He chose to put himself in that deleterious position so why should the officials allow him to use the "safety" reason for hanging on the rim? Seems a bit strange to reward someone for making a poor decision.

What "reward"? You consider being able to grab the rim a reward?

Dunks are legal. Being able to make sure you don't get hurt is, and should be, legal. So what's the problem? Do you want to make it illegal for a player to dunk the ball while running?

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

I agree with everyone, lol. Yes, could go either way.

The player CHOSE to dunk the ball going in a forward motion and then hung on the rim for safety. It was his choice. He could have dropped in through the hoop with no rim contact. He chose to put himself in that deleterious position so why should the officials allow him to use the "safety" reason for hanging on the rim? Seems a bit strange to reward someone for making a poor decision.

What poor decision did he make? To dunk the ball hard? Ya he could have dropped it in, or laid it in, or not dunked at all. UNless he's choosing to do something illegal its not a poor choice. Would you not protect the jump shooter because they could have shot a set shot. Or not protect someone shooting a floater because they could have taken a pullup or power layup? Kids taking two wild steps to take an ill advised shot are still entitled to protection under the rules, or does bad footwork now equate no protection?

If kids can make choices about how they shoot the ball and the rules allow/expect them to be able to be protected and land safely . . . just because we don't like hard, showy dunks doesn't mean they get penalized.